• Embed Doc
  • Copy Link
  • Readcast
  • Collections
  • CommentGo Back
Download
 
The paper presented at the 2 
nd 
International Conference
‘HIERARCHY AND POWER IN THE HISTORY OF CIVILIZATION’ 
St. Petersburg 7 July 2002 
Leonid GRININ
General context of the social evolution at theearly state formation
The general evolutionary and historical backgrounds of politogen-esis and formation of state are connected with а whole set of changes in economy and society noted by many various researchers(Ambrosino 1995; Adams 1966; Bondarenko & Korotayev 2000; Bondar-enko & Sledzevski 2000; Carneiro 1970; 1978; 2000; 2002; Chase-Dunn & Hall 1997; Claessen 2000; 2002; Claessen & Scalnik 1978;1981; Claessen & Oosten 1996; Cohen 1978a; 1978b; Cohen & Service1978; Daniel 1968; Earle 1997; 2001; Feinman & Marcus 1998; Frazer 1980; Fried 1967; 1978; Grinin
∗
 1997, 1999; 2000a, 2000b, 2000c;2001, 2002a; 2002b; Haas 1995; 2001; Johnson & Earle 2000; Kradin &Lynsha 1995; Kradin
et all 
2000; Kubbel` 1988; Sahlins 1960; 1972;Service 1975; Spenser 2000; Vasiliev 1980; Wittfogel 1957 etc.). Alongwith that, the multifactoral nature of politogenesis is stressed, often enough.However, the monolinear view of the problem of the origin of state stilldominates (Kradin 1995:7), and, in fact, most researchers, manifestly or discretely, show inclination towards monolinear models (Service 1978;Haas 1995). So case material from history or ethnography can be foundto support or refute an these positions and other as well (Cohen 1978a:8; 1978b).Among the researchers who deal with the problems of polito-genesis the actually predominant tendency is to narrow the analysis toits ‘pure’ line. However, it is necessary to consider the genesis of earlystate in the general context of socioevolutionary processes coeval withit. It seems impossible to say that such an approach was always ignored(Claessen & Scalnik 1978; Claessen 2000). However, notwithstandingsubstantial achievements in the analysis of the general cultural context of 
 
The ideas of this report are presented in detail in my work consisting of separate pub-lishings (Grinin 2001; 2002a; 2000b).
 
state formation processes, this problem still appears to be far from its realsolution.One of the reasons is the fact that the process of politogenesis becomes а central issue not only because of the formulation of the prob-lem itself – which is quite justifiable – but also because it seems to be-come actually central among other evolution processes coeval with it.The latter circumstance is far from always being fair since political as- pects of society complication not infrequently proved to be of secondaryimportance (although later they could became of primary importance).Often enough politogenesis is illegitimately reduced to а morenarrow process – that is, the formation of state. I name this approach as
statocentrism
(Grinin 2001; Bondarenko, Grinin, Korotayev 2002).However, many historical and ethnographical examples of polities areknown which morphologically and otherwise differ significantly fromearly state but are quite comparable with it in the range of their func-tions and/or level of their structural complexity (Bondaren-ko & Korotayev 2000; Grinin 1997, 2000a, 2000b, 2001, 2002a; Kradin& Lynsha 1995; Kradin
et all 
2000). It is also noted that differences between complex chiefdoms and rudimentary early states are insignific-ant (Kochacova 1999). Therefore, from the point of view of develop-ment
stages
, such chiefdoms and other polities can be regarded as equalto state, and they can legitimately be named as
early state analogues
(Grinin 1997, 2000a, 2000b, 2000с; Bondarenko, Grinin, Korotayev2002). In certain conditions, the early state analogues could transforminto state proper.Therefore, for the solution of early state genesis problems I con-sider it very important to make а much stronger distinction, both in the-ory and terminology, between: а)
politogenesis
not only as an earlier butalso as а wider phenomenon, and b) state formation process proper as аmore specific and а later process that can be termed as
statogenesis
(Grinin 2002a; Bondarenko, Grinin, Korotayev 2002)
 .
In the Western,at least in the one that uses the English language, anthropological sci-ence the terminological situation resembles а mirror reflection. The no-tion of politogenesis does not exist there, and political anthropologistsconsider the term ‘state formation process’ to be sufficient. We suggestto use the term ‘politogenesis’ in order to denote the formation of anytypes of complex political organization (Grinin 2002a; Bondarenko,Grinin, Korotayev 2002)
 .
2
 
The general evolution context of post-primitive stage is connec-ted with powerful changes caused by the transition from foraging tofood production. Population growth, increase in the quantity of welfareand more complicated distribution of it, as well as other processes, leadto а situation when previous ways of the formation of societies, of rela-tions inside of them and between them could no longer solve all theemerging problems. For this reason, the already more complex sociumsfaced а principally similar evolution problem:
to find new ways of structuring and unification of societies and establishing intersocietyrelations
. The vast diversity of specific socio-political forms yielded, inа sense,
different answers to this evolution problem
. It should also betaken into consideration that these processes were very syncretic andthey easily transformed into each other: social into professional and viceversa; sacral into political and vice versa (Wason and Baldia 1995: 142),ethnical into political and vice versa (Kubbel` 1988; Cabezas 2000); political and social into proprietary and vice versa (see Sahlins 1972:140). In this aspect,
 politogenesis can also be regarded only as one of the ways – for а long time not the most important from the point of viewof evolution at that – of solving the mentioned evolution problem, along with other processes (such as ethnogenesis, emergence of inequality,other socio-cultural changes)
(Grinin 2001).Although now many deny the necessity to single out stages inthis or that process (Shanks and Tilley 1987; see criticism of this byWason 1995:19), I am inclined to agree with Robert Carneiro in that op- posing the process and the stages is false dichotomy (Carneiro
 
2000). Inthe general evolution aspect the following stages can be singled out in politogenesis:
1. Prestate. 2. Early state. 3. State, i. e. the stage of already formed state
.But, in contradistinction to the concepts by Service (Service1975), Fried (Fried 1967) and some other researchers that are also basedevolution phases of development, I most specifically point out that:
when societies reach the mentioned stages they may possess quite differ-ent political and social forms. There is no, and cannot be, any unifica-tion and singular linearity
. The aims of such division into periods are:а) to reveal similarities in complexity, development level and functionsof outwardly dissimilar societies, and b) to emphasize the multilinearityof evolution, at the same time not forgetting that among evolution linesthe main (or general) one can be singled out which is the formation of 
3
of 00

Leave a Comment

You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...
You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...